There are a lot of problems with "fact-based news", the biggest one being identification of actual "facts."
Look at ProPublica as an example. Their MO is generally to take facts and build a giant lie without ever actually lying, technically. I've given them thorough dressings-down for their blatant attacks on the American Red Cross and Amazon, but nobody actually cares because ProPublica has a better hook: take something people trust and convince them that trust has been violated. There are a few good examples here, though.
The familiar American Red Cross attack article on their handling of Haiti claimed ARC lies about the amount of overhead because they hire independent contractors. The reasoning is that ARC keeps 9% of their revenue stream as operating expenses, but their real overhead is around 40% or higher because they hire contractors who also have operating expense--never mind that the contractors are more-efficient than any non-professional, non-expert option, or that the materials have "overhead" because they need to be mined, shipped, and sold. Things aren't magicked into existence, and ARC isn't a vertically-integrated organization with expertise in everything; they generally try to bring the most-efficient solution to a problem, and that means hiring the best contractors they can find, that being the ones who perform at the highest return per cost invested.
ProPublica has repeatedly published ARC internal documents and loudly shouted that ARC is hiding and ignoring serious defects in their organization's handling of major disasters. This one's even simpler: the documents they published were Lesson's Learned documentation. They discussed what problems they had, why they had problems, and any potential methods for avoiding those problems in future disaster scenarios. Many are marked for further review and discussion. The documents ProPublica published are explicitly for the purpose of identifying problems encountered and preventing them in the future, yet they managed to claim ARC is "hiding and ignoring" all of these problems.
Their article on Amazon's "Buy Box" claims they always put Amazon first, even if they're more-expensive. What actually happens is Amazon (almost) always displays the lowest price-plus-shipping option for a particular product by default; and Amazon uses the lowest-price shipping option for that, which is Amazon's Subscribe and Save shipping. You can get free shipping by having $25 of items in your box or having Prime; ProPublica unilaterally applied a non-free shipping option to inflate the total cost. They also nitpicked about Amazon always listing Shipped by Amazon options first in the full list of sellers, even when these aren't the lowest price options; if Amazon didn't do that, they could have instead attacked them for advertising "free shipping" but making it "difficult to find the Amazon-shipped items to actually get it".
Notice the facts. Facts, facts, facts. ARC spent $500 billion, built 6 houses, was going to build 50 but gave up (never mind that the project was determined wasteful and pointless, and people were dying of a cholera epidemic that ARC stopped instead). Amazon shows you their option first and doesn't count shipping in their prices (never mind that free shipping is an option but alternate sellers don't offer it). ProPublica gives facts and tells you what to think about them.
It gets worse.
Jimbo Wales thinks he can fix this sort of un-news. Does he think he can identify and gate out finicky reasoning and spin? Can he identify when facts are missing, or induce others to do so? For that matter, can we identify who has the most-correct and most-complete set of facts, and if they're disclosing them all without ordering them to create an alternate narrative?
It takes some inherent bias to break fake news. I tear down fake articles I understand, and I hit economics pretty hard because I like economics. Fake news isn'
You have to understand that most (then quickly virtually all) menial jobs will be automated away
A large number of jobs babysitting machines will be created. You know, the same thing that happened all through history: we got rid of highly-skilled, heavily-trained, expensive craftsmen and replaced them with assholes who can operate a lever after five minutes of instruction. Then, we reminded those people we can replace them easily, and paid them less.
I'm mostly ok with your proposal but minimum wage is insufficient to live on so that part is still a stick which is not what UBI should be. Universal social security should be at a minimum, a livable wage.
The 2013 number wwas $546/month per single-adult.
That used a 224sqft single-individual living space, comparing to low-income apartment rents at an average of $1.00-$1.06 per square foot rent, measured in Baltimore, New York, Seattle, and various areas of California, as well as spot checks across the country. The cost of constructing such an apartment was assessed against published lists of materials and replacement intervals, and compares favorably because the kitchen and bathroom fixed costs are roughly $3,000 out of a $26,000 construction cost. Because individuals with a basic income have a known income which can't be lost by termination of employment, loss of working hours, or loss of welfare benefit, the cost of risk in scaling down living spaces shrinks.
With that consideration, the viable monthly rent for such a living space is $237; I budgeted $300/month. That left $246.
Food, using retail prices checked across high and low income areas, was originally specified as $100/month. I've modeled complete food plans in 2016 as low as $25 per 2,000kcal/day over 30 days, but that's rigorous and fragile; the additional buffer is required to control risk.
I also allocated $35/month to clothing and $35/month to personal care. These expenses are more-flexible--clothing obviously can be held onto longer; and soap, tooth paste, laundry care, and the like are overbudgeted--and so I eventually modeled onto a combined $170/month food, clothing, and personal care budget. That gave me enough flexibility for a $45/year Sam's Club membership, utensils, and kitchen tools in one model, even getting so far as purchasing a $200 bread making machine in the fourth month on savings.
Utilities come to $35/month in this model. I used to live in a 750sqft apartment and pay $57/month for utilities; it was poorly insulated, with brick, 2x4 air gap (no batting), and 3/8 drywall on three sides (two long, one short). That includes a $13/month gas customer charge and a $7/month electric customer charge; the landlord can split a single account across multiple tenants to reduce these charges via metering-on-site, although we could theoretically apply regulation to specify a building charge for multi-tenant residences to try to reduce them administratively. Some buildings have shared utilities, but I don't like one tenant's overage to cost other tenants; if the landlord is using on-site metering, they have the same responsibility, except they account for utilities by actual use instead of by equal responsibility.
This leaves $46.49 unbudgeted, with each budgeted expense overbudgeted as a risk control. All in all, roughly 45% of the $549 is a risk control; it's technically possible for a single individual to survive on around $300/month, barely, under perfect conditions. That's unacceptable risk.
The 2014 number is $552/month; the 2015 number was $583/month; the 2016 number is $602/month. That's $331 rent; $188 food, clothing, and personal care flexible budget; and $33 utilities. This leaves $50 unbudgeted. Note that the income actually grows faster than inflation, so these budget numbers are higher than the difference in cost--food costs increased by about 2/3 as much as the food budget between 2013 and 2015, for example, meaning the 20
I was trying to extrapolate from sword-making to something more-recognizable. Maybe these aren't as related as I'd considered. The process for making e.g. a katana involves a hell of a lot of folding, repeated quenching, clay coating, and so forth; and all the folding is done largely to work impurities in the metal to the surface, producing an anti-corrosive coating and making the metal more uniform and less prone to fracture, which is probably not important when you have access to modern refined feed stock.
People still charge $800 for a traditionally-constructed, hand-made chef's knife, and there's a waiting list.
That sentence doesn't say it sold receipts; it says it sold "anonymized data". They could be collecting Lyft receipts, reading the locales, aggregating statistics (which produces data that doesn't have any idenitfying information), and selling Uber statistics on age demographics, lengths of trips, where trips started and ended, times of day, etc.
If you get a block of data that tells you that 20-25-year-old males in Boston are traveling from one block area to another block area, average trip lengths of 4 miles, peaking around 7:30am and 3:30pm, with histograms per 15 minutes, what does that tell you about the users whose data went into it? Does it let you identify them as individuals? Can you somehow factor out someone's name from that?
Someone's designing all this new stuff, someone's operating all of these ultra-low-labor factories. We'll need 10 people instead of 300 to run the factory, but what then? We've suddenly got the income to buy 30 times as much stuff--and we need 30x the production, meaning 300 people running 30 factories instead of 1.
Robots won't "take all our jobs" in the same way that machines didn't "take all our jobs" already. The labor required to produce most goods and services today is extremely-fractional. Like, it used to take 200 times as many workers to produce iron; and making a shirt in 1800 was 479 labor-hours (at minimum wage, that's $3,950) versus a total of under 3 hours today (including the fiber, spinning, weaving, dying, and construction). Food production requires less than 6% as many workers for the same yield.
$13.73 month this year, normally $17.08/month, 2GB LTE, unlimited voice, unlimited SMS, one line. You're doing better with anemic data use on two phones, slightly.
My next Mintsim renewal for 2GB/month is $160 for the year. The standard price for 2GB/month LTE, unlimited voice, unlimited text is $199/year + 3% taxes ($205). For 5GB it's $299/year +3%; 10GB is $399/year +3%.
What's Ting? $6/month for the line, plus $3 for any voice at all, plus $3 for text, plus another $5 for data, plus $7 in taxes, plus any usage? That's like $24/month minimum; if you're eating more than 100 messages and more than 500MB data, you're already around $38/month. I'm paying $17/month.
Cellular takes up space. You can't have similar-frequency radio waves in the same space. It's the same thing as giving buildings or pools (water) to businesses.
Huh. I have Mintsim and pay $200/year for 1 line, 2GB/month 4G LTE, unlimited text, unlimited voice. My next renewal is $160 for the year, though. Taxes are an additional 3%.
A basic income works because it's basic. The reward has to be significant to provide for work. Some people believe this means a giant beating stick constantly hitting you (no work, no food, you die in the streets); it seems a big enough gap between "survival" and "luxury" would do it.
If you work on the idea of maximizing return for effort, then all you need is a middle-class level sufficiently beyond a basic income level. Because of how income works--if almost everyone is rich, that's essentially your "middle class", as the per-capita income is substantially-close to their income--you just need to keep your basic income relatively-low to make that happen. For example: my Universal Social Security proposes what amounts to a bit over 45% minimum wage full-time (it works, largely by creating new market incentives--low incomes are unstable today), and a full-time minimum-wage job thus triples your income. Even taking a half-time (20hr) minimum-wage job under that scheme would give you 109% more money and no absolute needs on which to spend, meaning you're free to spend more money than you ever had on whatever the hell you want. That's enormous.
As we increase our level of technology, wealth increases thusly. If the same labor force rate continues to work the same hours, then our wealth increases in the same way: halve the labor to produce (new technology), double the production, everyone's money represents the same amount of labor to buy, and half the money buys the same amount of stuff--we're twice as wealthy. It's impossible to prevent that from reaching the middle-class, as well (there's a narrative that it doesn't and hasn't; that narrative is a complete and obvious lie, but people happily use all the new toys they could never afford 20 years ago while living in larger houses and eating out more-frequently and claim they've only gotten poorer).
In such a situation, the same percentage taken as a universal social security ends up paying out twice the buying power. The gap between that and middle-class is still just as large; and the effect of getting a job is similar in scale, but scaled up appropriately--i.e. you still double your money working 20 hours, but you're doubling twice the buying power, so those 20 hours plus the basic income amount to four-times the earlier level of basic income.
On the other hand, we can ditch the material wealth and buy time. If we double our level of technology but cut our working time by half, then the same labor force works 20-hour weeks (two 10-hour days?). We're not really able to buy more stuff, and so the poor living on Universal Social Security aren't any richer; yet if those poor get a 20-hour job, they're working full-time, and thusly end up with 3x the buying power instead of only 2x.
You can scale between these, of course: double the labor productivity and work 4/5 as much. 4 days per week, 32-hour work week. Everyone is 1.6 times as wealthy, and only works 80% as many hours. The basic standard of living of the unemployed individual on the basic income is increased to 1.6 times; the impact of getting a job is increased in scale by the reduction of working hours (i.e. 25%).
As technology increases, we'll largely still work. Will we work the same amount? In 1900, the normal working hours were 10-16 hours per day, 6 days per week. 96-hour work weeks faced the 8-8-8 campaign for the 40-hour work week. The Fair Labor Standards Act is kind of a new thing, and didn't universally define full-time as 40 hours until near the mid-1900s. I think we could see 28-32 hours as a full-time day in the near-mid future; as you can see above, we have to sacrifice some material wealth if we're going to not produce in that time. We get to make that decision when we increase the amount of material wealth we can produce by a great enough margin to come out no-poorer even if we cut some chunk off the end--that chunk being proportional to the reduction in
Technology has always replaced what humans can do. You can hammer a block of hot iron into a knife; or you can have a drop forge do it 1,000 times each hour. It takes about a week to hammer out a proper knife by hand; that means, at minimum wage of $8.25/hr, that knife can cost no less than $330--and that doesn't even include the materials cost for the metal, the tools, the fuel, forge maintenance, and so forth. Much-better knives cost as much as $90 today (I got a Kai Shun Premier VG-10 bladed knife with hand-hammered finish for $99), and high-quality blades (e.g. the Kai Wasabi Black series) can deliver a good-quality, carbon-steel chef's knife for under $30 (you'll have to finish sharpening the blade yourself; they come pretty dull compared to a Kai Shun Premier).
In many cases, you'll vastly-exceed the performance of a hand-made good with a high-tech industrial process. In most cases, you can sacrifice a small amount of performance to use a much-lower-labor process, making a good that's e.g. 90% as durable, much-more featureful (this tends to stack multiple times, so eventually it's literally tens or hundreds of times as featureful), and 10% as expensive. In some cases, you don't--industrial mills are better than hand-milling wooden planks, and engineered wood is even better. Even hand-made glass can't stack up to precisely-controlled industrial processes using high-grade glass feed stocks and precisely-controlled temperatures--fewer defective pieces, less cracking under temperature transitions.
You'll also see this pattern in some old companies failing out, e.g. power tools made in China using modern engineering tuned to modern manufacture processes for massive cost savings versus an old manufacturer going out of business because their tools also moved to Chinese manufacture but were then adjusted to manufacture more-cheaply instead of fully-reengineered. The tool designed the ground up cost $100 and lasts 6-8 months under professional use; the tool ported to cheap manufacture still costs $180 and lasts 8-10 months under professional use; and the original, made-in-USA tool cost $300 and lasted 8-10 months under professional use. You're going to save vast amounts of money getting the new Chinese one, which is why DIYers have DeWalt or Porter Cable tools, while professionals have cheap Ryobi tools even though they'll tell you a Porter Cable drill is a much better-made drill.
We've gone from watchmakers tapping on brass wheels all day to machines pumping out watch parts, and up to machines assembling large mechanisms. We still hand-assemble watches from the major mechanisms, and new machines will do that more-efficiently than humans.
That's technology. That's what it is. That's what it does. It activates an automated sprinkler so some guy doesn't have to walk all over a 3,000-acre farm with a bucket and a watering can.
Oh quit being so dramatic. They sold statistics. This is the same thing as when the BLS publishes the CES showing that American households in the median income quintile direct 12.1% of their spending to food oh my god you're in that quintile and your data is being published!!!
Not really. Human thought is directed by emotions as much as anything. Your personality and your basic behavior, preferences, decisions, the lot are all ruled by how strong various memories are. Your event memories wind together an emotional preference for certain outcomes, aversion to others, and indifference to most of the shit that happens; correlating things together has an impact, too, such that making a desirable outcome occur alongside a particular behavior causes you to engage in that behavior more-frequently. Greed is only another factor: you've learned that having things (and money) reduces adverse conditions and increases desirable conditions.
Using what people have learned by interacting with other people, by the common contexts of language, and by selecting words and phrases in patterns which emphasize some facets and de-emphasize others lets you change how people think. Largely, people think for themselves on a basis of information collected over a lifetime, and have sets of facts which are thusly distorted. They start gathering these facts before they have a frame of reference to analyze them.
That's why you get stupid shit like people believing readily-debunked myths such as that minimum wage increases cause additional spending and job creation or primarily takes money from the rich. No matter the argument, these things are learned-axioms that are used to quickly determine the argument is invalid--unless you carefully manipulate their emotional response to program in new facts that don't get vomited straight back out, but that cause their existing ideals to fail hard. It makes them uncomfortable pushing back, so they just accept this new information until someone makes a better argument.
If it were that simple, we could sell the world on socialism and eliminate money, poverty, and crime by suggesting people give up their individual greed and desires and submit to the benefit of mankind as a whole.
It's not the only thing that matters. You can sell an enormous lie to people without ever stating a factual inaccuracy by changing the way they interpret the information. Manipulating people so that you can shout loudly that 2+2=4 and have them hear that as meaning that you're giving them 2 apples and 2 pears and they're getting 7 fruits is a common and powerful rhetoric.
Basically, the statement semantically reads: "the discovery of 50% Chicken DNA is meaningless in terms of how much chicken is in the food" and "DNA testing generally gives you a reliable measure of how much DNA is in the food."
The reader will generally hear: "the discovery of 50% chicken DNA doesn't mean it's EXACTLY 50% chicken" and "chicken DNA is a measurement of about how much chicken is in there".
Those are two different statements. What's said and what's heard are different; and the structure of the sentence is to ensure that most people--even highly-intelligent people like the Slashdot crowd--generally hear the second set of information.
For someone who says others are unable to follow a conversation, you certainly show yourself to be unable to do so
I'm following the current discussion. Let me remind you that my post above was in response to your post:
He said the electrolytes have a small window for a stable voltage range. The most likely means that if you charge the electrolyte to (for instance) 3.4 volts it will be stable, but you can't charge it to more than 3.5 volts or less than 3.3 volts.
So my response on state-of-charge and the desirability of a stable voltage range is appropriate for the context of this discussion. Good try, but I have a bullshit-cutting katana.
But he was aked about the FAILURE mode of the batteries. And in answer to that he said there is a narrow WINDOW which will produce that stable voltage range. The WINDOW is refering to the CHARGE voltages that are required in order for the battery to produce that stable range on discharge.
Actually, the voltage at which you charge the battery only affects the rate at which it charges (and the amount of overcharge you can get when nearing/exceeding 100% capacity). Discharge voltage is controlled entirely by battery chemistry.
In other words: Everything you said there is factually-incorrect, technically-inaccurate, and wrong.
By reading ALL of his answers
I'm only interested in the response he gave to the question of why Lithium chemistry batteries suddenly lose capacity as a failure mode, which he answered by spouting a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate bullshit. If you ask, "Why is the sky blue," and a guy starts talking about how the sky on Mars is red during the day and oceans reflect heat off the surface of the planet due to their mercury content, he's 1)
spouting irrelevant bullshit; and 2) wrong. The content of the rest of his diatribe in a forum of further questioning is irrelevant to that inquisitive cycle.
he is saying that in order to keep the DESIRABLE stable voltage range
He suggested the stable voltage range is a problem caused by flammable electrolytes. You claimed that the stable voltage range is the charging range above, and have now changed the definition (fallacy of equivocation).
You're really not good at arguing with people who can think and comprehend, you know that?
The "usual" way is to measure actual protein content, which indicates a relative measure of proportional mass of biological material.
The way they used was to measure DNA content, which indicates content of in-tact DNA. DNA content of 1kg of uncooked, well-preserved, small-cell biological material will be higher than DNA content of 1kg of cooked, large-cell biological material.
The "But" conjunction is special. It suggests to the listener that the prior statement had no meaning, and thus that it can be safely ignored.
The structure of that statement is to say that 50% Chicken DNA doesn't mean 50% Chicken meat, but the testing is a good measure of proportion.
Take that statement without the first part: "DNA Experts have told Marketplace that the testing is a good indicator of animal and plant DNA in the product." Sounds like it's a reasonable measure, right? Another nice trick: the last statements made--end of a paragraph, end of a sentence, and so forth--carry the most weight.
Slashdot Mirror
It is if you don't have any way to make rent if a $50 unexpected expense shows up because you pre-spend all your money on shitty beer.
There are a lot of problems with "fact-based news", the biggest one being identification of actual "facts."
Look at ProPublica as an example. Their MO is generally to take facts and build a giant lie without ever actually lying, technically. I've given them thorough dressings-down for their blatant attacks on the American Red Cross and Amazon, but nobody actually cares because ProPublica has a better hook: take something people trust and convince them that trust has been violated. There are a few good examples here, though.
The familiar American Red Cross attack article on their handling of Haiti claimed ARC lies about the amount of overhead because they hire independent contractors. The reasoning is that ARC keeps 9% of their revenue stream as operating expenses, but their real overhead is around 40% or higher because they hire contractors who also have operating expense--never mind that the contractors are more-efficient than any non-professional, non-expert option, or that the materials have "overhead" because they need to be mined, shipped, and sold. Things aren't magicked into existence, and ARC isn't a vertically-integrated organization with expertise in everything; they generally try to bring the most-efficient solution to a problem, and that means hiring the best contractors they can find, that being the ones who perform at the highest return per cost invested.
ProPublica has repeatedly published ARC internal documents and loudly shouted that ARC is hiding and ignoring serious defects in their organization's handling of major disasters. This one's even simpler: the documents they published were Lesson's Learned documentation. They discussed what problems they had, why they had problems, and any potential methods for avoiding those problems in future disaster scenarios. Many are marked for further review and discussion. The documents ProPublica published are explicitly for the purpose of identifying problems encountered and preventing them in the future, yet they managed to claim ARC is "hiding and ignoring" all of these problems.
Their article on Amazon's "Buy Box" claims they always put Amazon first, even if they're more-expensive. What actually happens is Amazon (almost) always displays the lowest price-plus-shipping option for a particular product by default; and Amazon uses the lowest-price shipping option for that, which is Amazon's Subscribe and Save shipping. You can get free shipping by having $25 of items in your box or having Prime; ProPublica unilaterally applied a non-free shipping option to inflate the total cost. They also nitpicked about Amazon always listing Shipped by Amazon options first in the full list of sellers, even when these aren't the lowest price options; if Amazon didn't do that, they could have instead attacked them for advertising "free shipping" but making it "difficult to find the Amazon-shipped items to actually get it".
Notice the facts. Facts, facts, facts. ARC spent $500 billion, built 6 houses, was going to build 50 but gave up (never mind that the project was determined wasteful and pointless, and people were dying of a cholera epidemic that ARC stopped instead). Amazon shows you their option first and doesn't count shipping in their prices (never mind that free shipping is an option but alternate sellers don't offer it). ProPublica gives facts and tells you what to think about them.
It gets worse.
Jimbo Wales thinks he can fix this sort of un-news. Does he think he can identify and gate out finicky reasoning and spin? Can he identify when facts are missing, or induce others to do so? For that matter, can we identify who has the most-correct and most-complete set of facts, and if they're disclosing them all without ordering them to create an alternate narrative?
It takes some inherent bias to break fake news. I tear down fake articles I understand, and I hit economics pretty hard because I like economics. Fake news isn'
You have to understand that most (then quickly virtually all) menial jobs will be automated away
A large number of jobs babysitting machines will be created. You know, the same thing that happened all through history: we got rid of highly-skilled, heavily-trained, expensive craftsmen and replaced them with assholes who can operate a lever after five minutes of instruction. Then, we reminded those people we can replace them easily, and paid them less.
I'm mostly ok with your proposal but minimum wage is insufficient to live on so that part is still a stick which is not what UBI should be. Universal social security should be at a minimum, a livable wage.
The 2013 number wwas $546/month per single-adult.
That used a 224sqft single-individual living space, comparing to low-income apartment rents at an average of $1.00-$1.06 per square foot rent, measured in Baltimore, New York, Seattle, and various areas of California, as well as spot checks across the country. The cost of constructing such an apartment was assessed against published lists of materials and replacement intervals, and compares favorably because the kitchen and bathroom fixed costs are roughly $3,000 out of a $26,000 construction cost. Because individuals with a basic income have a known income which can't be lost by termination of employment, loss of working hours, or loss of welfare benefit, the cost of risk in scaling down living spaces shrinks.
With that consideration, the viable monthly rent for such a living space is $237; I budgeted $300/month. That left $246.
Food, using retail prices checked across high and low income areas, was originally specified as $100/month. I've modeled complete food plans in 2016 as low as $25 per 2,000kcal/day over 30 days, but that's rigorous and fragile; the additional buffer is required to control risk.
I also allocated $35/month to clothing and $35/month to personal care. These expenses are more-flexible--clothing obviously can be held onto longer; and soap, tooth paste, laundry care, and the like are overbudgeted--and so I eventually modeled onto a combined $170/month food, clothing, and personal care budget. That gave me enough flexibility for a $45/year Sam's Club membership, utensils, and kitchen tools in one model, even getting so far as purchasing a $200 bread making machine in the fourth month on savings.
Utilities come to $35/month in this model. I used to live in a 750sqft apartment and pay $57/month for utilities; it was poorly insulated, with brick, 2x4 air gap (no batting), and 3/8 drywall on three sides (two long, one short). That includes a $13/month gas customer charge and a $7/month electric customer charge; the landlord can split a single account across multiple tenants to reduce these charges via metering-on-site, although we could theoretically apply regulation to specify a building charge for multi-tenant residences to try to reduce them administratively. Some buildings have shared utilities, but I don't like one tenant's overage to cost other tenants; if the landlord is using on-site metering, they have the same responsibility, except they account for utilities by actual use instead of by equal responsibility.
This leaves $46.49 unbudgeted, with each budgeted expense overbudgeted as a risk control. All in all, roughly 45% of the $549 is a risk control; it's technically possible for a single individual to survive on around $300/month, barely, under perfect conditions. That's unacceptable risk.
The 2014 number is $552/month; the 2015 number was $583/month; the 2016 number is $602/month. That's $331 rent; $188 food, clothing, and personal care flexible budget; and $33 utilities. This leaves $50 unbudgeted. Note that the income actually grows faster than inflation, so these budget numbers are higher than the difference in cost--food costs increased by about 2/3 as much as the food budget between 2013 and 2015, for example, meaning the 20
I was trying to extrapolate from sword-making to something more-recognizable. Maybe these aren't as related as I'd considered. The process for making e.g. a katana involves a hell of a lot of folding, repeated quenching, clay coating, and so forth; and all the folding is done largely to work impurities in the metal to the surface, producing an anti-corrosive coating and making the metal more uniform and less prone to fracture, which is probably not important when you have access to modern refined feed stock.
People still charge $800 for a traditionally-constructed, hand-made chef's knife, and there's a waiting list.
That sentence doesn't say it sold receipts; it says it sold "anonymized data". They could be collecting Lyft receipts, reading the locales, aggregating statistics (which produces data that doesn't have any idenitfying information), and selling Uber statistics on age demographics, lengths of trips, where trips started and ended, times of day, etc.
If you get a block of data that tells you that 20-25-year-old males in Boston are traveling from one block area to another block area, average trip lengths of 4 miles, peaking around 7:30am and 3:30pm, with histograms per 15 minutes, what does that tell you about the users whose data went into it? Does it let you identify them as individuals? Can you somehow factor out someone's name from that?
Someone's designing all this new stuff, someone's operating all of these ultra-low-labor factories. We'll need 10 people instead of 300 to run the factory, but what then? We've suddenly got the income to buy 30 times as much stuff--and we need 30x the production, meaning 300 people running 30 factories instead of 1.
Don't be daft.
Robots won't "take all our jobs" in the same way that machines didn't "take all our jobs" already. The labor required to produce most goods and services today is extremely-fractional. Like, it used to take 200 times as many workers to produce iron; and making a shirt in 1800 was 479 labor-hours (at minimum wage, that's $3,950) versus a total of under 3 hours today (including the fiber, spinning, weaving, dying, and construction). Food production requires less than 6% as many workers for the same yield.
We'll end up with 200 times as much shit.
$13.73 month this year, normally $17.08/month, 2GB LTE, unlimited voice, unlimited SMS, one line. You're doing better with anemic data use on two phones, slightly.
My next Mintsim renewal for 2GB/month is $160 for the year. The standard price for 2GB/month LTE, unlimited voice, unlimited text is $199/year + 3% taxes ($205). For 5GB it's $299/year +3%; 10GB is $399/year +3%.
What's Ting? $6/month for the line, plus $3 for any voice at all, plus $3 for text, plus another $5 for data, plus $7 in taxes, plus any usage? That's like $24/month minimum; if you're eating more than 100 messages and more than 500MB data, you're already around $38/month. I'm paying $17/month.
Sounds like you're getting soaked.
Cellular takes up space. You can't have similar-frequency radio waves in the same space. It's the same thing as giving buildings or pools (water) to businesses.
One of your friends inevitably runs up an $800 overage and then vanishes to another country.
Huh. I have Mintsim and pay $200/year for 1 line, 2GB/month 4G LTE, unlimited text, unlimited voice. My next renewal is $160 for the year, though. Taxes are an additional 3%.
Rick Schumann?
A basic income works because it's basic. The reward has to be significant to provide for work. Some people believe this means a giant beating stick constantly hitting you (no work, no food, you die in the streets); it seems a big enough gap between "survival" and "luxury" would do it.
If you work on the idea of maximizing return for effort, then all you need is a middle-class level sufficiently beyond a basic income level. Because of how income works--if almost everyone is rich, that's essentially your "middle class", as the per-capita income is substantially-close to their income--you just need to keep your basic income relatively-low to make that happen. For example: my Universal Social Security proposes what amounts to a bit over 45% minimum wage full-time (it works, largely by creating new market incentives--low incomes are unstable today), and a full-time minimum-wage job thus triples your income. Even taking a half-time (20hr) minimum-wage job under that scheme would give you 109% more money and no absolute needs on which to spend, meaning you're free to spend more money than you ever had on whatever the hell you want. That's enormous.
As we increase our level of technology, wealth increases thusly. If the same labor force rate continues to work the same hours, then our wealth increases in the same way: halve the labor to produce (new technology), double the production, everyone's money represents the same amount of labor to buy, and half the money buys the same amount of stuff--we're twice as wealthy. It's impossible to prevent that from reaching the middle-class, as well (there's a narrative that it doesn't and hasn't; that narrative is a complete and obvious lie, but people happily use all the new toys they could never afford 20 years ago while living in larger houses and eating out more-frequently and claim they've only gotten poorer).
In such a situation, the same percentage taken as a universal social security ends up paying out twice the buying power. The gap between that and middle-class is still just as large; and the effect of getting a job is similar in scale, but scaled up appropriately--i.e. you still double your money working 20 hours, but you're doubling twice the buying power, so those 20 hours plus the basic income amount to four-times the earlier level of basic income.
On the other hand, we can ditch the material wealth and buy time. If we double our level of technology but cut our working time by half, then the same labor force works 20-hour weeks (two 10-hour days?). We're not really able to buy more stuff, and so the poor living on Universal Social Security aren't any richer; yet if those poor get a 20-hour job, they're working full-time, and thusly end up with 3x the buying power instead of only 2x.
You can scale between these, of course: double the labor productivity and work 4/5 as much. 4 days per week, 32-hour work week. Everyone is 1.6 times as wealthy, and only works 80% as many hours. The basic standard of living of the unemployed individual on the basic income is increased to 1.6 times; the impact of getting a job is increased in scale by the reduction of working hours (i.e. 25%).
As technology increases, we'll largely still work. Will we work the same amount? In 1900, the normal working hours were 10-16 hours per day, 6 days per week. 96-hour work weeks faced the 8-8-8 campaign for the 40-hour work week. The Fair Labor Standards Act is kind of a new thing, and didn't universally define full-time as 40 hours until near the mid-1900s. I think we could see 28-32 hours as a full-time day in the near-mid future; as you can see above, we have to sacrifice some material wealth if we're going to not produce in that time. We get to make that decision when we increase the amount of material wealth we can produce by a great enough margin to come out no-poorer even if we cut some chunk off the end--that chunk being proportional to the reduction in
Technology has always replaced what humans can do. You can hammer a block of hot iron into a knife; or you can have a drop forge do it 1,000 times each hour. It takes about a week to hammer out a proper knife by hand; that means, at minimum wage of $8.25/hr, that knife can cost no less than $330--and that doesn't even include the materials cost for the metal, the tools, the fuel, forge maintenance, and so forth. Much-better knives cost as much as $90 today (I got a Kai Shun Premier VG-10 bladed knife with hand-hammered finish for $99), and high-quality blades (e.g. the Kai Wasabi Black series) can deliver a good-quality, carbon-steel chef's knife for under $30 (you'll have to finish sharpening the blade yourself; they come pretty dull compared to a Kai Shun Premier).
In many cases, you'll vastly-exceed the performance of a hand-made good with a high-tech industrial process. In most cases, you can sacrifice a small amount of performance to use a much-lower-labor process, making a good that's e.g. 90% as durable, much-more featureful (this tends to stack multiple times, so eventually it's literally tens or hundreds of times as featureful), and 10% as expensive. In some cases, you don't--industrial mills are better than hand-milling wooden planks, and engineered wood is even better. Even hand-made glass can't stack up to precisely-controlled industrial processes using high-grade glass feed stocks and precisely-controlled temperatures--fewer defective pieces, less cracking under temperature transitions.
You'll also see this pattern in some old companies failing out, e.g. power tools made in China using modern engineering tuned to modern manufacture processes for massive cost savings versus an old manufacturer going out of business because their tools also moved to Chinese manufacture but were then adjusted to manufacture more-cheaply instead of fully-reengineered. The tool designed the ground up cost $100 and lasts 6-8 months under professional use; the tool ported to cheap manufacture still costs $180 and lasts 8-10 months under professional use; and the original, made-in-USA tool cost $300 and lasted 8-10 months under professional use. You're going to save vast amounts of money getting the new Chinese one, which is why DIYers have DeWalt or Porter Cable tools, while professionals have cheap Ryobi tools even though they'll tell you a Porter Cable drill is a much better-made drill.
We've gone from watchmakers tapping on brass wheels all day to machines pumping out watch parts, and up to machines assembling large mechanisms. We still hand-assemble watches from the major mechanisms, and new machines will do that more-efficiently than humans.
That's technology. That's what it is. That's what it does. It activates an automated sprinkler so some guy doesn't have to walk all over a 3,000-acre farm with a bucket and a watering can.
Oh quit being so dramatic. They sold statistics. This is the same thing as when the BLS publishes the CES showing that American households in the median income quintile direct 12.1% of their spending to food oh my god you're in that quintile and your data is being published!!!
Not really. Human thought is directed by emotions as much as anything. Your personality and your basic behavior, preferences, decisions, the lot are all ruled by how strong various memories are. Your event memories wind together an emotional preference for certain outcomes, aversion to others, and indifference to most of the shit that happens; correlating things together has an impact, too, such that making a desirable outcome occur alongside a particular behavior causes you to engage in that behavior more-frequently. Greed is only another factor: you've learned that having things (and money) reduces adverse conditions and increases desirable conditions.
Using what people have learned by interacting with other people, by the common contexts of language, and by selecting words and phrases in patterns which emphasize some facets and de-emphasize others lets you change how people think. Largely, people think for themselves on a basis of information collected over a lifetime, and have sets of facts which are thusly distorted. They start gathering these facts before they have a frame of reference to analyze them.
That's why you get stupid shit like people believing readily-debunked myths such as that minimum wage increases cause additional spending and job creation or primarily takes money from the rich. No matter the argument, these things are learned-axioms that are used to quickly determine the argument is invalid--unless you carefully manipulate their emotional response to program in new facts that don't get vomited straight back out, but that cause their existing ideals to fail hard. It makes them uncomfortable pushing back, so they just accept this new information until someone makes a better argument.
At least it's still better than the fake reporting ProPublica regularly cons NPR into.
If it were that simple, we could sell the world on socialism and eliminate money, poverty, and crime by suggesting people give up their individual greed and desires and submit to the benefit of mankind as a whole.
It's not the only thing that matters. You can sell an enormous lie to people without ever stating a factual inaccuracy by changing the way they interpret the information. Manipulating people so that you can shout loudly that 2+2=4 and have them hear that as meaning that you're giving them 2 apples and 2 pears and they're getting 7 fruits is a common and powerful rhetoric.
Basically, the statement semantically reads: "the discovery of 50% Chicken DNA is meaningless in terms of how much chicken is in the food" and "DNA testing generally gives you a reliable measure of how much DNA is in the food."
The reader will generally hear: "the discovery of 50% chicken DNA doesn't mean it's EXACTLY 50% chicken" and "chicken DNA is a measurement of about how much chicken is in there".
Those are two different statements. What's said and what's heard are different; and the structure of the sentence is to ensure that most people--even highly-intelligent people like the Slashdot crowd--generally hear the second set of information.
For someone who says others are unable to follow a conversation, you certainly show yourself to be unable to do so
I'm following the current discussion. Let me remind you that my post above was in response to your post:
He said the electrolytes have a small window for a stable voltage range. The most likely means that if you charge the electrolyte to (for instance) 3.4 volts it will be stable, but you can't charge it to more than 3.5 volts or less than 3.3 volts.
So my response on state-of-charge and the desirability of a stable voltage range is appropriate for the context of this discussion. Good try, but I have a bullshit-cutting katana.
But he was aked about the FAILURE mode of the batteries. And in answer to that he said there is a narrow WINDOW which will produce that stable voltage range. The WINDOW is refering to the CHARGE voltages that are required in order for the battery to produce that stable range on discharge.
Actually, the voltage at which you charge the battery only affects the rate at which it charges (and the amount of overcharge you can get when nearing/exceeding 100% capacity). Discharge voltage is controlled entirely by battery chemistry.
In other words: Everything you said there is factually-incorrect, technically-inaccurate, and wrong.
By reading ALL of his answers
I'm only interested in the response he gave to the question of why Lithium chemistry batteries suddenly lose capacity as a failure mode, which he answered by spouting a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate bullshit. If you ask, "Why is the sky blue," and a guy starts talking about how the sky on Mars is red during the day and oceans reflect heat off the surface of the planet due to their mercury content, he's 1) spouting irrelevant bullshit; and 2) wrong. The content of the rest of his diatribe in a forum of further questioning is irrelevant to that inquisitive cycle.
he is saying that in order to keep the DESIRABLE stable voltage range
He suggested the stable voltage range is a problem caused by flammable electrolytes. You claimed that the stable voltage range is the charging range above, and have now changed the definition (fallacy of equivocation).
You're really not good at arguing with people who can think and comprehend, you know that?
How many AirBnB listings are just so you can sift through hot women for the ones who are looking to hook up during their stay?
As a matter of fact, I don't have any faith in humanity.
What if their product is actually real chicken marinated in a soy-based sauce?
The "usual" way is to measure actual protein content, which indicates a relative measure of proportional mass of biological material.
The way they used was to measure DNA content, which indicates content of in-tact DNA. DNA content of 1kg of uncooked, well-preserved, small-cell biological material will be higher than DNA content of 1kg of cooked, large-cell biological material.
The "But" conjunction is special. It suggests to the listener that the prior statement had no meaning, and thus that it can be safely ignored.
The structure of that statement is to say that 50% Chicken DNA doesn't mean 50% Chicken meat, but the testing is a good measure of proportion.
Take that statement without the first part: "DNA Experts have told Marketplace that the testing is a good indicator of animal and plant DNA in the product." Sounds like it's a reasonable measure, right? Another nice trick: the last statements made--end of a paragraph, end of a sentence, and so forth--carry the most weight.